alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.8

Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary Sheet



|                                               |  |                         |        | 
|---------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | ------ | 
|Annual Retainer                                |  | $                       | 39,655 | 
|                                               | 
|Type of Meeting                                |  | Amount Paid per Meeting |       
|Board Meeting                                  |  | $                       | 3,965  | 
|Special Meeting                                |  | $                       | 3,965  | 
|Telephonic Board Meeting                       |  | $                       | 1,130  | 
|Compensation & Nominating Committee Meeting    |  | $                       | 1,700  | 
|Audit Committee Meeting                        |  | $                       | 3,400  | 
|Executive Committee Meeting                    |  | $                       | 3,965  | 
|Additional Fee for Chairperson (except Audit)  |  | $                       | 1,700  | 
|Additional Fee for Audit Committee Chairperson |  | $                       | 2,265  | 
|                                               |  |                         |        | 



66
# C_2021297EN.01003602.xml

| 26.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Borborudi v Council

(Case T-580/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Retention of the applicant’s name on the list - Error of assessment - Article 266 TFEU)

(2021/C 297/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sayed Shamsuddin Borborudi (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: L. Vidal, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and D. Mykolaitis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/855 of 27 May 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2019 L 140, p. 1) in so far as it retains the name of the applicant on the list set out in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/855 of the Council of the European Union of 27 May 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it concerns Mr Sayed Shamsuddin Borborudi; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/855 of the Council of the European Union of 27 May 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it concerns Mr Sayed Shamsuddin Borborudi;

| 2. | Orders the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 829 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 829

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to repeal the Medicare 
                outpatient rehabilitation therapy caps.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 14, 2011

Mr. Cardin (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Leahy, 
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Mr. Franken, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Reed, and Mr. 
    Graham) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to repeal the Medicare 
                outpatient rehabilitation therapy caps.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Access to Rehabilitation 
Services Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. OUTPATIENT THERAPY CAP REPEAL.

    Section 1833 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(l)) is 
amended by striking subsection (g).
                                 <all>
```
# C_2021278EN.01004101.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2021 — Franz Schröder v EUIPO — RDS Design (MONTANA)

(Case T-855/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark MONTANA - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Right to be heard - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion - Admission of evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Article 95(1) and (2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 278/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG (Delbrück, Germany) (represented by: L. Pechan and N. Fangmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: RDS Design ApS (Allerød, Denmark) (represented by: J. Viinberg, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 October 2019 (Case R 1006/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Franz Schröder and RDS Design.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

| 3. | Orders RDS Design ApS to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders RDS Design ApS to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

---
S. Con. Res. 51 Agreed to June 29, 2012

One Hundred Twelfth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twelve 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from 

Friday, June 29, 2012, through Monday, July 2, 2012, on a motion 

offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader 

or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon 

on Monday, July 9, 2012, or such other time on that day as may 

be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion 

to recess or adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant 

to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; 

and that when the House adjourns on any legislative day from 

Friday, June 29, 2012, through Friday, July 6, 2012, on a motion 

offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader 

or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on Monday, 

July 9, 2012, or until time of any reassembly pursuant to section 

2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first. 

SEC. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker 

of the House, or their respective designees, acting jointly after 

consultation with the Minority Leader of the Senate and the 

Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of the 

Senate and House, respectively, to reassemble at such place and 

time as they may designate if, in their opinion, the public interest 

shall warrant it. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 10.23.2

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1


         This Amendment amends the Residential Distributor Program Agreement,
dated January 5, 1998 ("Agreement"), by and between LCI International Telecom
Corp ("LCI") and Quintelcomm, Inc. ("Representative").

1.       The Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

         A. This Amendment shall be effective for May and June 1998 and July
         1998 only. Representative shall obtain {Confidential portion omitted
         and filed separately with the Commission} for the Services in each of
         May and June and July 1998, after completing {Confidential portion
         omitted and filed separately with the Commission}. The commissions due
         as a result of the {Confidential portion omitted and filed separately
         with the Commission} each month shall be as set forth in the Agreement.
         The commissions due as a result of the first usage for {Confidential
         portion omitted and filed separately with the Commission} A new
         "channel/org code" shall be used for such Customers {Confidential
         portion omitted and filed separately with the Commission}. Commission
         payments under this Amendment may be made based on good faith estimates
         by LCI. A "true up" shall be performed when adequate and accurate
         reporting is available and additional payments or chargebacks, as
         applicable, shall be made.

                  Notwithstanding anything in the Agreement to the contrary, in
         May and June and July 1998 Representative may market for a competitor
         of LCI provided 1) such marketing does not include a promotion that is
         being marketed by Representative for LCI, 2) the segment of
         Representative's database used for such marketing shall be separate and
         distinct from that used or to be used for marketing on behalf of LCI
         and 3) no LCI Customers shall be solicited.

                  After obtaining {Confidential portion omitted and filed
         separately with the Commission} in May 1998, Representative may,
         following written notice to LCI,
<PAGE>   2
         accelerate the start of obtaining the {Confidential portion omitted and
         filed separately with the Commission}, that would otherwise begin in
         June.

         B. All capitalized terms not defined in the Amendment shall be as
defined in the Agreement.

II.      All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged.

LCI International Telecom Corp.

By   /s/ John C. Taylor                 Date     5-29-98      
     -------------------------------             -------
John C. Taylor, SVP Consumer Markets

(Print Name and Title)


Quintelcomm, Inc.

By   /s/Jeffrey Schwartz                Date     5-26-98  
     -------------------------------             ------- 
Jeffrey Schwartz, COB                           

(Print Name and Title)


                                        2
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-10840

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Amber Dawn Villarreal, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:22-CR-19-1

______________________________

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Amber Dawn 

Villarreal has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Villarreal has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 20, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-10840 Document: 00516719787 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2023
No. 22-10840

2

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for 

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. 

R. 42.2.

Case: 22-10840 Document: 00516719787 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2023
# C_2020027EN.01001102.xml

| 27.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 12 August 2019 — Husqvarna AB v Lidl E-Commerce International GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-607/19)

(2020/C 27/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Husqvarna AB

Defendant: Lidl E-Commerce International GmbH & Co. KG

Questions referred

| 1. | In the case of a counterclaim seeking a declaration that an EU trade mark has lapsed, which was filed prior to the expiry of the period of five years of non-use, is the establishment of the date which is decisive for the calculation of the period of non-use in the context of the application of Article 51(1)(a) CTMR (1) and Article 58(1)(a) EUTMR (2) covered by the provisions of the Community Trade Mark Regulation and the European Union Trade Mark Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the case of a counterclaim seeking a declaration that an EU trade mark has lapsed, which was filed prior to the expiry of the period of five years of non-use, is the establishment of the date which is decisive for the calculation of the period of non-use in the context of the application of Article 51(1)(a) CTMR (1) and Article 58(1)(a) EUTMR (2) covered by the provisions of the Community Trade Mark Regulation and the European Union Trade Mark Regulation?

| 2. | If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: In the calculation of the period of five years of non-use pursuant to Article 51(1)(a) CTMR and Article 58(1)(a) EUTMR in the case of a counterclaim, filed prior to expiry of the period of five years of non-use, for a declaration that an EU trade mark has lapsed, is account to be taken of the date of filing of the counterclaim or of the date of the last hearing in the appeal on the merits? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: In the calculation of the period of five years of non-use pursuant to Article 51(1)(a) CTMR and Article 58(1)(a) EUTMR in the case of a counterclaim, filed prior to expiry of the period of five years of non-use, for a declaration that an EU trade mark has lapsed, is account to be taken of the date of filing of the counterclaim or of the date of the last hearing in the appeal on the merits?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).

---
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . A P - 76, 286

EX PA R TE STE V E E . G A I TH ER , A ppl i c ant

ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. 2 0 0 7 - 4 1 8 , 6 1 7 - A I N T HE 3 6 4 J UDI CI AL DI S TR I CT COURT TH FROM LUBBOCK CO UNTY

P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pur s u an t to th e p r o v is io n s o f A rti c le 1 1
. 0 7 o f th e T e xa s Co d e o f Cr im in a l Pr o c edure , the cler k of the trial c ourt transmitted to this C ourt this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex pa rte Y oung , 4 18 S.W. 2d

82 4, 82 6 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 67 ). Ap pli c ant w a s c onvic te d o f po sse ssi on wi th intent to deliver a c ontrolled substance and sente nced to twenty -two y ear s’ imprisonment. Ap pli c ant c on te nd s th a t his c ouns e l r e nd e re d in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e becau se he fa ile d to timely file a notice of appe al. Counsel has submitted an af fidavit conc edingthat he wa s awa re of Ap pli c ant’s des ir e to a

pp e a l, b ut d id n ot t ime ly

fi le a mot ion fo r n e w tri a l or

a no tic e of a pp e a l. T h e tr ia l c o urt ha s d e te r

mi n e d th a t t

r ia l c o un s e l f

a il e d to ti me ly f il e a n o ti c e o f a p p e a l. We2

find, there fore , that Applica n t is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of

-time appe al of the judgme nt of conviction in Cause No. 2007-418,617-Afrom the 364th J udicial District Court of Lubbock County . Applicant is order ed re turned to that time at which he may g ive a wr itten notice of a pp e a l so that he may

the n, wi th t

he a id o f c ouns e l, o bta in a me anin g fu l a

pp e a l. Al l ti me lim its sh a ll b e c a lc ulate d a s if

the se nte nc e ha d b e e n im po se d on th e date o n w hic h th e mand a te of thi s Court issues. W e hold that, should A pplicant desire to pr osecute an appea l, he must take aff irmative steps to file a wr itten notice of a ppeal in the trial court within 30 da y s after the mandate of this Court iss ue s.

Deliver ed: Fe bruar

y 10, 2010 Do No t Pu

bli sh
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.15

Simple Promissory Note date October 1, 2001 by and between the Company and Paul
and Joan Katzeff.

                             Simple Promissory Note

                                    $6,967.17

In the City of Fort Bragg, County of Mendocino, in the State of California, on
the 1/st/ day of October, 2001 on demand, Thanksgiving coffee Company promises
to pay to the order of Paul Katzeff and Joan Katzeff the principle sum of Six
Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty-Seven Dollars and Seventeen Cents $6967.17 payable
in a lump sum on April 1, 2002, together with interest, payable monthly, at 10%
per annum, payable in installments of $500 or more on the first of the month,
beginning on the first day of November, 2001, and continuing until said
principle and interest have been paid in full.

Obilgee/Maker of Promise

/s/ Joan Katzeff, President                                   October 1, 2001
---------------------------                                   ---------------

Officer, Thanksgiving Coffee Company                          Date

Borrower

/s/ Paul Katzeff                                              October 1, 2001
------------------                                            ---------------

Paul Katzeff, Lender                                          Date


/s/ Joan Katzeff                                              October 1, 2001
----------------                                              ---------------

Joan Katzeff, Lender                                          Date
Exhibit 99.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Optical
Cable Corporation (the Company) Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Neil D. Wilkin, Jr., President
(chief executive officer) and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





|(1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




|(2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    January 29, 2003

By:

/s/  NEIL D. WILKIN, JR. Neil D. Wilkin, Jr. President
(chief executive officer) andChief Financial Officer
# C_2019288EN.01001701.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 24 April 2019 — Eurowings GmbH v GD, HE, IF

(Case C-334/19)

(2019/C 288/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Eurowings GmbH

Respondents: GD, HE, IF

Question referred

Are the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, (1) in particular Article 5(3) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the spontaneous absence of a significant portion of the flight crew staff — occasioned by their placing themselves on sick leave (‘a wildcat strike’) — of an air carrier that is leasing out an aircraft and crew under a ‘wet lease’ to the ‘operating air carrier’, within the meaning of Article 2(b) of that regulation, but which does not bear operational responsibility for the flights, has as an effect that the ‘operating air carrier’ is also not able to rely on ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of that regulation, in accordance with the judgment of 17 April 2018, Krüsemann and Others, C-195/17, C-197/17 to C-203/17, C-226/17, C-228/17, C-254/17, C-274/17, C-275/17, C-278/17 to C-286/17 and C-290/17 to C-292/17? (2)

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

(2)  EU:C:2018:258.

---